Home? Hope? Heart?

by singaporearmchaircritic

Home?

The other day I was having a drink with some colleagues at a rooftop bar overlooking our city’s skyline and one of them asked me if I felt proud of this new cityscape which has come to symbolize Singapore’s prosperity to many of its awe-struck visitors. I said no, trying to identify a number of skyscrapers that seemed to have sprung up overnight.

If I had to explain myself in a few words, here’s why: the cityscape doesn’t feel like the Singapore I know. Sure, the view lined with swanky futuristic-looking architectures is magnificent but I do not see myself as part of that landscape. Looking at the waterfront, I felt as much a stranger, an outsider as my foreign colleagues, perhaps even more so (is it just me?).

On Sunday night I had the same unsettling feeling listening to our Prime Minister’s National Day Rally speech (text).

At the start of his speech he painted a scenario of a technological brave new world, throwing up acronyms (UAV, DARPA) of new technologies completely alien to me and cited some research on using brain-waves to control robots, all before delivering PAP’s favorite punchline: that we will fall behind if we stand still in a rapidly changing world.

I am no Luddite, as many Singaporeans aren’t, but our PM’s gushes about the technological advances were totally lost on me. It’s not that we do not understand the grand scheme of things. It’s just that instead of technological breakthroughs, Singaporeans like myself would prefer to hear about policy breakthroughs to tackle pressing problems plaguing our society today. Policy breakthroughs in the likes of those suggested by a former GIC Chief Economist (read Part I and II of the interview).

Hope?

Well, the PM did talk about a series of measures to address healthcare, education and housing challenges. And to his credit, he highlighted two fresh initiatives to look into: paternity leave and HDB flats for singles. Other than these, however, what he said only reaffirms PAP’s fundamental beliefs and approach.

His speech was peppered with PAP’s flog-to-death mantras, one after another:

that all of us, including low-income workers, must “upgrade” ourselves to stay competitive (pray tell me how cleaners and security guards can upgrade and how much more they can earn after);

that more social-spending means higher taxation in time to come (it doesn’t hurt if you reform our tax system to tax the rich more);

that we and our family must take care of ourselves (we are already doing that) before the state chips in to help;

that “[m]ost Singaporeans understand the need for immigrants and foreign workers, and accept them” (Oh really?);

There’s also a glaring gap in the PM’s speech: the thorny immigration issue. At what pace will the influx of migrants continue? Twenty-five thousand new citizens per year as recommended earlier? If so, the government must be more forthcoming because Singaporeans deserve to know.

Heart?

The 80-something grandma who plays basketball everyday to stay fit is endearing and it would be wonderful if more of our senior citizens can enjoy a healthy and happy retirement life like her. But she is obviously an exception and putting her on a pedestal doesn’t mean much when many senior citizens have to collect plates and wipe tables at food courts/hawker centers, peddle tissue packs, clean the washrooms in gleaming shopping malls, rummage rubbish bins for tin cans, collect cardboard boxes, all for a pittance.

Last week my colleague and I were talking about Singapore’s social safety nets and he recounted to me his encounter with an elderly woman at a bus terminal one night. The old lady was asking for directions because she had mistakenly taken the bus in the direction opposite to where she’s heading. When asked why she was out late at night, she told my colleague that she was heading home from work, which she had to commit herself to in order to get social welfare.

Is that the inclusive society we aspire to be, tying social welfare to employment without exception even for the weak and the elderly? This sort of policy betrays a kind of mindset that is thick on righteousness but thin on compassion and empathy.

Conversation?

What Singaporeans want in the next chapter of our story is a kinder, more compassionate society, with affordable and effective healthcare. These desired values are indicated in a recent survey in which a sample of 2,000 residents were asked to choose 10 values out of a list of 90 to describe a) themselves, b) the current society, and c) the desired society (see Table below).

(click to enlarge)

Media reports on the results of this values survey almost unvaryingly chose to emphasize one aspect of the finding, that Singapore is “kiasu, competitive and self-centered” (see here, here and here).

But the most important conclusions that can be drawn from the results are squarely left unsaid. When the values of the current and desired societies do not overlap or align at all, as evident in our case, it means that:

“Group is unhappy or frustrated, wants to see changes or take a new direction (source).”

National conversation or not, many Singaporeans have already aired their unhappiness in cyberspace, and some opposition parties have also put forward proposals for the challenges we face. It’s up to the government to take us into consideration. Or just dismiss us as “noise” in the “cowboy towns” of cyberspace.

I don’t know if PAP is incapable of coming up with new policy or simply too resistant to change their old ways, their fundamental beliefs eg. we will promote laziness in our people if we give out more generous social benefits with less stringent conditions; we will drive businesses away and lose jobs if we implement minimum wages. If the party can reverse its previous antipathy to gambling and build two casinos in Singapore, why can’t it re-look at its other socio-economic policies that are so grossly inadequate in today’s context? Maybe it’s because it has incentives to build casinos, but no incentives to implement minimum wages and better social safety nets.

I do feel the same way as you, about the Singapore sky-line. Its not just the fact that its new, unfamiliar. That’s understandable. In fact, that’s what LHL reminisced about at the end of his speech too, when he compared before and after of parts of Singapore and talked about how he identified with the old better. That’s only human.

But the other part is that – this is NOT for me, its for the elites. I’m a comfortable, upper middle class Singaporean. Even I’m uncomfortable at the way the new skyline has also come with sky-high prices. In the past, an upper class restaurant meal can be had for generously, $150-$200 per person. Now, dining in one of those new skyline restaurants can cost $400-$700 per person. Its the sense that this is for the super-rich. And its not just dining – housing, cars (previously a commodity item, now priced as a luxury, to the highest bidder), parking, etc. And the trend is up. Ministers, senior civil servants have their pay pegged to the top echelon, so this is a win-win for them. The faster they drive the GINI coefficient, the more they’re rewarded because the pegging. So they get to painlessly enjoy all these. For me, its increasingly out of reach.

Gazing at the sky-line reminds me of that final scene in Animal Farm, where the animals were looking through the window into the farmer’s house, and they saw their animal leaders walking on 2 legs, wining and dining with humans, making merry. Was that what they sacrificed for? Was this what the revolution was about? Similarly, for me, is this what economic growth is about, is for?

Yes indeed, and coupled with the knowledge that many low-income workers (foreign and local) earn as little as $500 per month, you can’t help but wonder what kind of society Singapore has become. Within the short span of a few years and through drastic social engineering, PAP has single-handedly transformed Singapore into a playground for the rich – a class that certainly includes our million-dollar political leaders. And that’s why LHL’s words were so jarring when he stressed yet again in his speech that economic growth is very important because it “has created jobs and improved lives for all.” For ALL? Who is he trying to kid?

You are not alone in feeling as a stranger. I was also admiring the skyline at a rooftop bar not too long ago and felt the same way. As much as I’m amazed by the beauty of our city, it has grown too rapidly for me to feel a connection and most to catch up.

Yah the rapid physical and socio-economic changes are disconcerting. And the “iconic” MBS is an eyesore frankly; everytime I look at it it conjures up images of many vices – not just gambling, but also loan-sharks & money-lending, money-laundering, other shady business and a host of social problems. Certainly has nothing to do with the kind & compassionate society Singaporeans desire to see in future.

[…] had conducted a survey to find out what the values are that Singaporeans want. According to the Singapore Armchair Critic, topmost is affordable healthcare – 44% of Singaporeans want affordable healthcare. Further […]

i’m sorry but i disagree with some of your criticism. firstly you state :that we and our family must take care of ourselves (we are already doing that) before the state chips in to help;
but you also provide evidence to the contrary : when many senior citizens have to collect plates and wipe tables at food courts/hawker centers, peddle tissue packs, clean the washrooms in gleaming shopping malls, rummage rubbish bins for tin cans, collect cardboard boxes, all for a pittance.

if we are taking care of our elderly like you claim why are so many of them working for peanuts?

I”m a singaporean true and true like all of you but perhaps I have a different perspective having been away 10yrs and back. We have it good and most of us living in our fishbowl don’t realize how good we have, try living in tokyo where the young have no jobs, no matter how smart they are. or in HK where the air is so bad, money can’t buy health or happiness or china where nothing is safe to ingest. I”ve lived in all these places and I tell you our government is better than most. True, times are a changing and they must keep up but I can’t name many other places where the citizens enjoy so much.

Let me clarify my points. When I said Singaporeans are already taking care of ourselves, I am referring to the “self-reliant” ethos of Singaporeans living under a system which has minimal social welfare attached with stringent conditions. All these years we have been told by the government that there is no free lunch (except for our political leaders, of course, who until recently were still drawing hefty pensions after retirement).

But in the words of Nicole Seah, there are many among us who have “fallen through the cracks” for various reasons. Perhaps they were bankrupted by high medical expenses, perhaps they have insufficient family support or a heavy family burden, or perhaps they have been caught by the vagaries of life that all mortals like you and I cannot foresee. Singapore’s poverty is very much hidden from public view, and even beggars and the homeless are shrewdly driven away from the streets. That does not mean poverty is non-existent. Some NGOs are already doing their part to help the underprivileged but the government should also do its part to help these people. Yet a frequent refrain of the government is that more social welfare means higher taxes, frightening the rich who fear a redistribution of their wealth should Singapore start giving out more generous social benefits. This is decidedly a simplistic and one-sided view as it masks the regressiveness of our current tax regime, and does not even consider alternative ways of sustaining a more comprehensive social welfare system.

I don’t think Singaporeans are living in a fish-bowl, given that many are well-read and well-traveled like yourself. Sure the Singapore government is better than China’s (I am sure most governments are), and in many ways our governance is better than Hong Kong’s. But as you said, times are changing, and while the government keeps urging Singaporeans to adapt to change, the PAP has to walk the talk too. Instead it has, time and again, demonstrated that it is resistant to change. Today the party has lost touch with the ground and lost the trust of many Singaporeans. Only when it starts to genuinely reflect upon itself and stop applying double-standards will it reclaim some of its lost grounds. Read this “PAP must return to its roots.”